Philotomy Jurament
First Post
All the thing sthat I like best about D&D are not edition-specific, but I also really like the Arcana Unearthed variants to Vancian magic. I thought that was very well done, and have adopted some of it in my C&C game.
What do you like about D&D?
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Jeremy757
First Post
I like how D&D is so confident without being to pushy or bossy.
I like how it doesn’t mind paying for dinner every once in a while or seeing movies that it doesn’t really care about just because it wants to spend time with me.
I like how it looks lovingly into my eyes.
It always cheers me up when I’m feeling down or bored.
I like how it never hogs the covers or snores very loudly.
And most of all…
It can be soft and it can be strong, maybe that's the reason we get along
Everything it does it does just right, D&D is tender in love and tough in a fight.
What I don’t like about D&D is its friends. They argue all the time and spend way too much time on the internet.
I like how it doesn’t mind paying for dinner every once in a while or seeing movies that it doesn’t really care about just because it wants to spend time with me.
I like how it looks lovingly into my eyes.
It always cheers me up when I’m feeling down or bored.
I like how it never hogs the covers or snores very loudly.
And most of all…
It can be soft and it can be strong, maybe that's the reason we get along
Everything it does it does just right, D&D is tender in love and tough in a fight.
What I don’t like about D&D is its friends. They argue all the time and spend way too much time on the internet.
Last edited:
Desdichado
Legend
- The ease of getting a group together.
- The sheer number of options for character building. I mean, there's way too many to use in any single given campaign, but I love having them all "just in case."
- The sheer number of options for foes and antagonists.
- The OGC. Without it we'd never have had such incredibly cool material as Iron Kingdoms, Midnight, Dark Legacies, etc.
- Classes. I kinda like classes. I don't mind point buy type games, but classes are a neat roleplaying hook for a character when you haven't figured out exactly who he is yet. Now, there's a lot of specifics about classes I don't like, but all in all, I kinda like them. For my d20 Fantasy homebrew, I first made an attempt to go with d20 Modern as the ruleset, and it's more or less classless (or at least archetype less, if not actually classless) but Mark II went back to archetypical classes after all.
Shroomy
Adventurer
I thought of something else, though it is pretty much restricted to 3/3.5e D&D and that is advancing, applying templates, or adding class levels to monsters. Yeah, sometimes the number crunching can be a pain, but nothing beats the evil grin I get on my face when I've finished statting up the next monstrosity to bedevil my players. 
Illirion
First Post
1. The fact that it's the worlds most known tabletop rpg and the ammount of available support and additional content that generates.
2. The classes are so well done that I can get excited about playing that class by just reading the mechanics or the background.
3. The standard D&D setting is so close to what I consider to be archtypical fantasy and yet complex enough that it continually allows re-create the feel of almost any popular work of fantasy I want.
4. The mechanics are simple and intuitive enough to explain quickly to someone, but complex enough to allow limitless inovation and tweaking.
I could probably think of a lot more, but I think I've come close to my top 4 right here.
Cheers,
Illirion.
2. The classes are so well done that I can get excited about playing that class by just reading the mechanics or the background.
3. The standard D&D setting is so close to what I consider to be archtypical fantasy and yet complex enough that it continually allows re-create the feel of almost any popular work of fantasy I want.
4. The mechanics are simple and intuitive enough to explain quickly to someone, but complex enough to allow limitless inovation and tweaking.
I could probably think of a lot more, but I think I've come close to my top 4 right here.
Cheers,
Illirion.
I like the built-in goal (via the XP/level system) where it's intuitively understood that the players want to explore dungeons and wildernesses, fight monsters, and recover as much treasure as possible. Other rpgs jump through hoops trying to provide realistic motivations for characters to go on "adventures" but in D&D none of that's necessary because of the way the rules are set up -- you go on adventures because that's what's done; it's how the game works.
I like the fact that a player can get started in about 5 minutes -- 6 ability scores, a class, a race, and an alignment and you've got a pretty good idea what your character is like and are ready to go. Other games that don't rely on archetypes and create more realistic and well-rounded characters are great for advanced/dedicated players, but when you've got a bunch of casual players and newbies, the shorter the delay between sitting down at the table and the actual fun part of play (exploration, role-playing, problem-solving) the better.
I like the kitchen-sink approach to fantasy -- the fact that no matter what your approach to fantasy is, it's in there somewhere. D&D sucks at accurately recreating any one specific pre-existing fantasy world, but is unparalleled in recreating all of them at once and making a fun game out of it that everyone can enjoy, not just the Tolkein-nuts or the Conan-nuts or the Arthurian-nuts or the medieval history buffs, etc.
I like that D&D recognizes that it's all a game and doesn't take itself too seriously -- it's not about creating art, it's about pastiche and borderline parody, a bunch of guys with a mutual interest sitting around a table having fun together -- competing and trying to "win" but also cracking jokes, making puns, and going off on wild tangents. If I want "serious" fantasy (intricate plots, fully developed characters, a consistent and believable alternate world) I'll read a book. Too many other rpgs take themselves way too seriously; D&D is refreshingly unpretentious.
I like the fact that a player can get started in about 5 minutes -- 6 ability scores, a class, a race, and an alignment and you've got a pretty good idea what your character is like and are ready to go. Other games that don't rely on archetypes and create more realistic and well-rounded characters are great for advanced/dedicated players, but when you've got a bunch of casual players and newbies, the shorter the delay between sitting down at the table and the actual fun part of play (exploration, role-playing, problem-solving) the better.
I like the kitchen-sink approach to fantasy -- the fact that no matter what your approach to fantasy is, it's in there somewhere. D&D sucks at accurately recreating any one specific pre-existing fantasy world, but is unparalleled in recreating all of them at once and making a fun game out of it that everyone can enjoy, not just the Tolkein-nuts or the Conan-nuts or the Arthurian-nuts or the medieval history buffs, etc.
I like that D&D recognizes that it's all a game and doesn't take itself too seriously -- it's not about creating art, it's about pastiche and borderline parody, a bunch of guys with a mutual interest sitting around a table having fun together -- competing and trying to "win" but also cracking jokes, making puns, and going off on wild tangents. If I want "serious" fantasy (intricate plots, fully developed characters, a consistent and believable alternate world) I'll read a book. Too many other rpgs take themselves way too seriously; D&D is refreshingly unpretentious.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Of those, the most important to me is classes; distinct and different archetypal roles within a group where the whole can add to greater than the sum of the parts. Game systems that allow these to blur, to where each character can do pretty much everything, tend to lose this inter-reliance aspect.Quasqueton said:
Lanefan
WayneLigon
Adventurer
On the whole, I like levels and classes. They make for a nice shorthand method of detailing a character very quickly with pre-made stuff. I can say 'I have a 9th level Fighter' and for the most part, that's a very quick definition of your relative combat prowess and niche in a party.
I like the abstract combat system. It could be tightened up in places, but on the whole it has the 'right' level of abstraction for me. I like that I don't have to worry about what part of the body I got hit in, don't have to keep track of each wound, don't have to worry about not having a helm or what bit of armor is covering what limb.
I like the skills system. It could be compressed a bit more, and some classes could have more skill points, but on the whole it does the job I want it to: provide me with a systematic description of non-combat abilities that help define my character's place in the world.
I like the abstract combat system. It could be tightened up in places, but on the whole it has the 'right' level of abstraction for me. I like that I don't have to worry about what part of the body I got hit in, don't have to keep track of each wound, don't have to worry about not having a helm or what bit of armor is covering what limb.
I like the skills system. It could be compressed a bit more, and some classes could have more skill points, but on the whole it does the job I want it to: provide me with a systematic description of non-combat abilities that help define my character's place in the world.
Celebrim
Legend
WayneLigon said:
Just to expand on that, as a DM what I really like about D&D's highly unrealistic combat system is that it discourages down time. In realistic combat systems with wounds and called strikes and so forth, players end up with real injuries all the time. Combat really hurts and frequently renders the character unfit for further adventuring. That appeals to a desire for realism, but it isn't actually conducive to play if after every other fight you have to put characters in long term convalesence to recover from thier injuries. It's like every time you fight, the game effectively hits 'pause'. It's not fun for anyone when someone's character is sidelined, and it greatly constrains the GM if he can only create plots that tolerate this sort of down time on the part of the party. Nothing can be time sensitive, which greatly reduces the dramatic tension of the story.
And that's to say nothing about the character retirements when serious maiming occurs. These are in fact often deaths in another form.
In D&D, except in rare circumstances, the character either died or he didn't. If he didn't, game on. Heck, after a point, even if he did, game on.
